The Needles: Crash Course in IP Enforcement Strategy

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

The Needles: Crash Course in IP Enforcement Strategy

The U.S. Government has just unveiled its first-ever strategy for intellectual property enforcement. Here's what you need to know.

Read Full Article

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said at a Washington D.C. press conference announcing the strategy. "Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."

image
Get it right people. There's a difference.

Anyone else tired of the US trying to make everyone else in the world like the US? Because it's getting kinda annoying.

Funny thing here America. If China and England called in their debts on you Right Now There wouldn't be an America anymore. Just something to think about when you try pushing everyone else around.

I don't care what you do in your own borders, but it stops at the border.

*Edit
Can people stop quoting me? It's getting seriously annoying I get that "New Message" icon every 5 minutes. Besides almost everything in reply has been said/spoken already.

dududf:

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said at a Washington D.C. press conference announcing the strategy. "Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."

image
Get it right people. There's a difference.

I'm pretty sure the article itself acknowledged that calling it stealing wasn't absolutely technically correct. Instead of trotting out that old horse pirates keep beating why not adress the meat of the article.

Kanodin0:
snip

I hit enter and posted prematurely.
...
That can be taken out of context far too easily.

I edit my posts a lot some times as I post before I'm done saying what I intended to say. I blame the ' key being next to enter.

If the U.S. government thinks that it can tell other countries what to do then it has the same sense of entitlement as the piracy-engaging "youth."

dududf:

Kanodin0:
snip

I hit enter and posted prematurely.
...
That can be taken out of context far too easily.

I edit my posts a lot some times as I post before I'm done saying what I intended to say. I blame the ' key being next to enter.

Fair enough. As to your expanded point I partially agree, the U.S. does attempt to order other countries too often. However I don't see any real problem on imposing trade restrictions on countries that won't go along with copyrights, it's not a direct order so much as fair leveraging.

Look, I agree with what they are doing but don't fuck with Canada.

Feel free to fuck with pirates though, they're kind of assholes.

Kanodin0:

dududf:

Kanodin0:
snip

I hit enter and posted prematurely.
...
That can be taken out of context far too easily.

I edit my posts a lot some times as I post before I'm done saying what I intended to say. I blame the ' key being next to enter.

Fair enough. As to your expanded point I partially agree, the U.S. does attempt to order other countries too often. However I don't see any real problem on imposing trade restrictions on countries that won't go along with copyrights, it's not a direct order so much as fair leveraging.

"Don't agree with our rules, or we'll remove one of your largest sources of income, and remove the jobs of millions of people"

Seems like bullying to me.

75% of US exports are IPs. Almost half of our economy is IP, of course the Government wants to protect it.

dududf:

Kanodin0:

dududf:

Kanodin0:
snip

I hit enter and posted prematurely.
...
That can be taken out of context far too easily.

I edit my posts a lot some times as I post before I'm done saying what I intended to say. I blame the ' key being next to enter.

Fair enough. As to your expanded point I partially agree, the U.S. does attempt to order other countries too often. However I don't see any real problem on imposing trade restrictions on countries that won't go along with copyrights, it's not a direct order so much as fair leveraging.

"Don't agree with our rules, or we'll remove one of your largest sources of income, and remove the jobs of millions of people"

Seems like bullying to me.

The U.S isn't required to trade with any state, why should it then give it's business to a state that won't cooperate with copyrights? You can talk about how that hurts the country in question, but that hypothetical country doesn't have some right to U.S. trade on any terms it likes.

Kanodin0:

dududf:

Kanodin0:

dududf:

Kanodin0:
snip

I hit enter and posted prematurely.
...
That can be taken out of context far too easily.

I edit my posts a lot some times as I post before I'm done saying what I intended to say. I blame the ' key being next to enter.

Fair enough. As to your expanded point I partially agree, the U.S. does attempt to order other countries too often. However I don't see any real problem on imposing trade restrictions on countries that won't go along with copyrights, it's not a direct order so much as fair leveraging.

"Don't agree with our rules, or we'll remove one of your largest sources of income, and remove the jobs of millions of people"

Seems like bullying to me.

The U.S isn't required to trade with any state, why should it then give it's business to a state that won't cooperate with copyrights? You can talk about how that hurts the country in question, but that hypothetical country doesn't have some right to U.S. trade on any terms it likes.

I'm not saying they have a right. I'm saying that the leverage they have could severely frig up a countries economy to all hell if they don't agree with something.

"Don't like what we're doing, say good bye to your economy" is what it looks like. Yeah I know they don't have a right, but that doesn't make it "right" to force countries that rely on the states so heavily to do as the states wish. THAT'S what I'm trying to say.

dududf:

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said at a Washington D.C. press conference announcing the strategy. "Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."

image
Get it right people. There's a difference.

As the article says, though? Does it matter if there's a difference, if the government, the ones making the laws, say there isn't one? You can argue until your tongue drops off but you're still comitting a crime (defining 'crime' as 'something against the law' rather than 'something fundamentally wrong').

I don't pirate, but the music industry only woke up to the modern 'sell a song by a few bucks' model after it was pirated to hell, so even if I agree in high theory with these laws, I don't think they'll be any good. But my main beef is that the victims are huge corporations. The government should help people; huge corporations can defend themselves.

interesting. seem the gov is doing a lot with the net. rumors of a internet kill switch also going to be covered at all on escapist?

The strategy document also acknowledges that while "the most frequently cited" numbers were based on 2007 estimates by the Institute for Public Policy that piracy cost the U.S. economy $58 billion in total economic output and over 373,000 jobs, other submissions questioned those figures, claiming they were based on the "unsubstantiated assumptions" that each pirated good represented a lost sale and that jobs lost in one industry weren't replaced by jobs in another.

I wish someone would do a research on how many pirates actually buy the game, even though they pirated it, and how many would buy it, if they couldn't pirate it. $58 bill. is a shitload of money, even if only 5% of that were true loss, it would be a lot of money.

Oh now I get it, you are arguing morality while I am merely arguing practicality. All I will say beyond that is that international politics is a cutthroat business, and don't think your country wouldn't do the same thing given the opportunity. Quote tree messed up somehow and was thusly removed.

BboyTeddyBear:
interesting. seem the gov is doing a lot with the net. rumors of a internet kill switch also going to be covered at all on escapist?

Yeah that was in the escapist news about a week ago. It was also mentioned in the religion and politics section of the forums too. The news post however is the one with a lot more posts.

Kanodin0:
Oh now I get it, you are arguing morality while I am merely arguing practicality. All I will say beyond that is that international politics is a cutthroat business, and don't think your country wouldn't do the same thing given the opportunity. Quote tree messed up somehow and was thusly removed.

I was looking at that going..Huh?

But yeah I'm kinda arguing morality here.

Iron Lightning:
If the U.S. government thinks that it can tell other countries what to do then it has the same sense of entitlement as the piracy-engaging "youth."

Agreed. Every country is different, and, will run things different...the US cannot think it can enforce its policy on everytone else through strong arming...its just wont work

I'm wondering just how evenhandedly those rules on copyright infringement/IP theft will be applied.

China is certainly one of the main offenders but can you honestly see America going "I'm sorry, but until you sort out these legal issues to our satisfaction we won't be engaging in Trade with you."

When the obvious response by the Chinese is then "OK, since it doesn't really affect us anymore if your economy goes through the porcelain bowl, we'd like our usual trade deficit to be paid in the form of all those loans. Dongyi."

Basically I figure the old adage of 'At your feet or at your throat' will apply.

Andy Chalk:
The Needles: Crash Course in IP Enforcement Strategy

The U.S. Government has just unveiled its first-ever strategy for intellectual property enforcement. Here's what you need to know.

Read Full Article

I'm interested that in your mention of Canada as a part of the 301 report, you didn't make any reference to Canda's own Bill C-32, introduced last month as the "Canadian Copyright Modernization act" to bring us in line with that report.

A bill which guarantees canadians an awesome number of rights to use technology and media we buy the way we want, and which shields us from overly-punitive damages in civil cases.

... and which then throws all those rights out the window by making it illegal to circumvent any kind of manufacturer-included DRM, copy protection devices, or digital locks.

-m

I dunno, there's more than a few countries out there who will drop their pants and bend over if America looks their way and grunts.

But yeah, if America decides to cut all economic ties with countries it suspects have people in it who pirates, then they will find themselves very, VERY alone. Heck, given The Bush years, most of the world has realized they need us more than we need them.

dududf:

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said at a Washington D.C. press conference announcing the strategy. "Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."

*IMAGE SNIP*

Get it right people. There's a difference.

Considering that before "digital piracy", it was pretty hard to argue that piracy =/= theft since it did require you take a physical object from someone else by force (and as far as the open seas are concerned, it still it), we really need to find a new term for "making an illegal copy of a digital product for the purpose of using it without paying the creator(s) the money they would otherwise receive and thus depriving them of said funds if said copy was obtained through legal means".

Space Jawa:

dududf:

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said at a Washington D.C. press conference announcing the strategy. "Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."

*IMAGE SNIP*

Get it right people. There's a difference.

Considering that before "digital piracy", it was pretty hard to argue that piracy =/= theft since it [b]did[/b] require you take a physical object from someone else by force (and as far as the open seas are concerned, it still it), we really need to find a new term for "making an illegal copy of a digital product for the purpose of using it without paying the creator(s) the money they would otherwise receive and thus depriving them of said funds if said copy was obtained through legal means".

There is one. Bootlegging.

-m

I think Digital Distribution is a great anti-piracy measure, because it allows games to be cheaply and conveniently sold to a consumer without worrying about stuff like how many copies a store has in stock. I don't think retail stores will die out anytime soon, but Digital Distribution is a great alternative to piracy(weird way of putting it, I know), in which you're not getting shit for free, you're getting it for so cheap it almost feels like a better deal; and the developers profit a lot more because Digital Distribution effectively cuts out the middleman.

I honestly am more and more reminded of things like the "war on drugs" that had been so popular in the government a few years back - the idea of taking a system of control that is quite obviously floundering and, rather than having people find a new system that works better for the current environment, continuing to punish people for not accepting that which used to work okay-ish. The system isn't even consistently applied, which adds to the problems being encountered.

What we need to be spending time on is finding a system for "IP" that will actually work well enough to benefit the customer AND the game makers without putting the two bases at odds with each other.

Edit: Also, the government in the US, and likely other places as well, needs to get over the "Let's protect a business type because it's been around for a while" metality and focus on helping develop new innovations to business that will work without government subsidies.

I think Andy is overblowing things. If there is one thing pirates have been absolutely EXCELLENT at, it's adapting. The government will have to absolutely overdo itself if it's going to even be able to piss pirates off.

With that said, there are some cause for concern. The 301 and Canada's mention in it is indeed something I'm keeping an eye on to see how it develops.

dududf:

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said at a Washington D.C. press conference announcing the strategy. "Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."

image
Get it right people. There's a difference.

Anyone else tired of the US trying to make everyone else in the world like the US? Because it's getting kinda annoying.

Funny thing here America. If China and England called in their debts on you Right Now There wouldn't be an America anymore. Just something to think about when you try pushing everyone else around.

I don't care what you do in your own borders, but it stops at the border.

First off, England never would. Second, nobody else has the balls to try. Why? It will spark World War III Nukes.

dududf:

Kanodin0:

dududf:

Kanodin0:

dududf:

Kanodin0:
snip

I hit enter and posted prematurely.
...
That can be taken out of context far too easily.

I edit my posts a lot some times as I post before I'm done saying what I intended to say. I blame the ' key being next to enter.

Fair enough. As to your expanded point I partially agree, the U.S. does attempt to order other countries too often. However I don't see any real problem on imposing trade restrictions on countries that won't go along with copyrights, it's not a direct order so much as fair leveraging.

"Don't agree with our rules, or we'll remove one of your largest sources of income, and remove the jobs of millions of people"

Seems like bullying to me.

The U.S isn't required to trade with any state, why should it then give it's business to a state that won't cooperate with copyrights? You can talk about how that hurts the country in question, but that hypothetical country doesn't have some right to U.S. trade on any terms it likes.

I'm not saying they have a right. I'm saying that the leverage they have could severely frig up a countries economy to all hell if they don't agree with something.

"Don't like what we're doing, say good bye to your economy" is what it looks like. Yeah I know they don't have a right, but that doesn't make it "right" to force countries that rely on the states so heavily to do as the states wish. THAT'S what I'm trying to say.

I really don't think the States is in any position to threaten anyone with economical reprecussions.

dududf:

Kanodin0:

dududf:

Kanodin0:

dududf:

Kanodin0:
snip

I hit enter and posted prematurely.
...
That can be taken out of context far too easily.

I edit my posts a lot some times as I post before I'm done saying what I intended to say. I blame the ' key being next to enter.

Fair enough. As to your expanded point I partially agree, the U.S. does attempt to order other countries too often. However I don't see any real problem on imposing trade restrictions on countries that won't go along with copyrights, it's not a direct order so much as fair leveraging.

"Don't agree with our rules, or we'll remove one of your largest sources of income, and remove the jobs of millions of people"

Seems like bullying to me.

The U.S isn't required to trade with any state, why should it then give it's business to a state that won't cooperate with copyrights? You can talk about how that hurts the country in question, but that hypothetical country doesn't have some right to U.S. trade on any terms it likes.

I'm not saying they have a right. I'm saying that the leverage they have could severely frig up a countries economy to all hell if they don't agree with something.

"Don't like what we're doing, say good bye to your economy" is what it looks like. Yeah I know they don't have a right, but that doesn't make it "right" to force countries that rely on the states so heavily to do as the states wish. THAT'S what I'm trying to say.

Hey, our economy is in the shitter, so we have NOTHING to lose. That said, how are you going to actually stop us them (I only download music personally)?

I love how they mention all the people who had input that are the people who have something to gain from it, like the law makers who get it from taxes and industry hacks who want the laws to enforce their broken and out of date business models, but the ones that were left out the ones that suffer at the hands of massive corporations, the people themselves. We the people has become the Corporation of rich people.

squid5580:
snip

To certain countries they could. The irony would be pretty funny personally however.

Tom Roberts:
I'm wondering just how evenhandedly those rules on copyright infringement/IP theft will be applied.

China is certainly one of the main offenders but can you honestly see America going "I'm sorry, but until you sort out these legal issues to our satisfaction we won't be engaging in Trade with you."

When the obvious response by the Chinese is then "OK, since it doesn't really affect us anymore if your economy goes through the porcelain bowl, we'd like our usual trade deficit to be paid in the form of all those loans. Dongyi."

Basically I figure the old adage of 'At your feet or at your throat' will apply.

We'd respond "Ok, your payment is coming in the form of our 10s of thousands of nukes coming at your country. Good bye."

From a legislative standpoint, this really just represents the government affirming that it groups INTELLECTUAL property under the same protections as PHYSICAL property. While enforcement is the biggest problem, this at least goes a LONG way toward removing the weak rationalizations currently used by pirates.

dududf:
I'm not saying they have a right. I'm saying that the leverage they have could severely frig up a countries economy to all hell if they don't agree with something.

We didn't tie their economy up like that. They did. We're just looking to protect what is ours. What we are asking for DIRECTLY relates to the products they're getting from us. This is not bullying.

Bullying is using force, or the threat or implication of force, to change someone's behavior. Like if I said "Give me your wallet, or I'll hit you." The force is not connected at all to the behavior. This isn't that. This is more like saying "I will let you into my club if you wear this hat. If you do not wear this hat, I will not let you into my club." The consequence relates EXACTLY to the behavior.

Simply being in the advantageous position doesn't make it bullying--otherwise, EVERY law would simply be "bullying," since the state is in the position to enforce it and you're not equipped to stand up to the entire police force. It's a tricky distinction, but it's an important one. A couple more examples, to clarify my point:

DESIRED OUTCOME: You want a member of your bowling team to wear the team shirt.

BULLYING: "Wear the shirt, or I'll hit you in the face." Hitting in the face is not a logical consequence for not wearing the shirt--it is simply a threat of force meant to coerce a response.

LEVERAGING/ENFORCING POLICY: "Wear the team shirt, or you can't participate with the team." This creates a logical consequence and presents a choice. If they want to participate, they will have to comply unconditionally.

Matt_LRR:

Space Jawa:

dududf:

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said at a Washington D.C. press conference announcing the strategy. "Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."

*IMAGE SNIP*

Get it right people. There's a difference.

Considering that before "digital piracy", it was pretty hard to argue that piracy =/= theft since it [b]did[/b] require you take a physical object from someone else by force (and as far as the open seas are concerned, it still it), we really need to find a new term for "making an illegal copy of a digital product for the purpose of using it without paying the creator(s) the money they would otherwise receive and thus depriving them of said funds if said copy was obtained through legal means".

There is one. Bootlegging.

-m

Makes people think of piracy and legs, which causes one to think of hair covered pirate legs. No thanks.

Enigmers:
I think Digital Distribution is a great anti-piracy measure, because it allows games to be cheaply and conveniently sold to a consumer without worrying about stuff like how many copies a store has in stock. I don't think retail stores will die out anytime soon, but Digital Distribution is a great alternative to piracy(weird way of putting it, I know), in which you're not getting shit for free, you're getting it for so cheap it almost feels like a better deal; and the developers profit a lot more because Digital Distribution effectively cuts out the middleman.

*I wanted to use Mal's middleman quote but I couldn't find nor remember it*

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here